Are our views always entrenched?

There is much truth in the points you've raised Granjura and a lot of common sense.

When there aren't enough jobs, it doesn't matter how determined some people are. My brother gave up the full time job of looking for a job after years of trying and went to do voluntary work for CAB to regain his self-esteem. His physical health had been damaged by a massive road accident (ruptured diaphragm, burst lung, punctured liver, crushed arm, broken ribs – shall I go on? – not to mention the total shaking up of his brain). He got some temporary jobs as an accountant, but because his speech was slurred and his manual coordination not as good as it had been. He had a hard time. Eventually he gave up.

It's OK to give up sometimes. My brother is not weak, nor did he exploit any loopholes.

Forgive me, jura, but your posts come across as very cross with the world and even a little jaundiced. I'm sure you are not cross or jaundiced.

If my mum has to sell her house to pay for care in her very old age, I think that's perfectly fair. People who haven't got a house to sell, who have been paying rent all their lives, obviously can't pay for their own care because they haven't got the capital from a house sale. That kind of 'wrench' can't be avoided. Other wrenches – booting people out of their homes because of bad planning on the part of government – can be avoided and should be in my opinion.

Tut, tut, Bags - there you go - talking about a close relative.

Your poor brother, because of his disability, is exactly the sort of person who we need to look after, and it is wonderful that the UK social system provides and care for those who need it. My brother is not. To pretend that there are not many people who are not prepared, rather unable, to look after themselves and take responsibility is naive beyond belief.

I am neither angry nor jaundiced, you are right. Although I am angry at those who decry prejudice via different prejudice. I have nephews in public school and I feel it is wrong that they should be forever despised by some for the school choice their parents made - and automatically dismissed as toffs and baffoons, only successful because of their private education, and their ideas and beliefs automatically dismissed because of the school they went to.

But yes, I am sick and tired of people saying that because tax evasion is worse (ad I totally agree btw) not taking responsibility and expecting to stay in large council accommodation with lots of space forever, whilst families live in bedsits, is right. and that we should not try and find solutions which transcend the right/left divide.

They should have approached it from the other end - built some smaller ground-floor houses, at attractive rents, and said they would ONLY be let to people over a certain age with no children living at home. Then they should have interviewed those who wanted to move and made it seem a privilege to have one of these, offered to those of more mature years and commonsense.

There would have been a queue of people wanting to live in a more manageable house with a smaller garden, away from large families and NOT in a flat in a tower block beside a lot of youngsters just escaped from home and living it up.

But that would take some planning and imagination. Instead they said that these people were blocking those who needed larger houses and they ought to yield place to the next generation. Much the same as saying that the elderly are filling up hospital beds and should be more considerate in how they choose to be ill.

Are there any 'large' council houses? I thought council houses tended to be on the small side even when they do have three bedrooms.

elegran, I agree. If anyone is to blame, it is councils and national government.

Bags that's terrible about your brother and most of us accept that those who cannot work, or find work, need all the support that's available.
But it's those who could work but milk the system who are eating up available funds, money that ought to be used for the genuinely needy, people like your brother.
There are jobs out there, unfilled. Yes, many of them are dirty, unsociable and minimum wage I agree. And many short term or part-time too. Even so they are there. I recently had a French student staying with us. He wanted to come back to improve his English so he got himself a job on a local farm, tomato picking. His girlfriend came with him and is working in a Curry House. Vacancies the locals don't want.
Perhaps Granjura sounds tense because she can't get her point across???

Indeed, which is why I've always said that the current bedroom 'tax' (not a tax as you can't be taxed something that is not yours btw) - is poorly thought out and rushed. But that changes have to happen, and that (I'll say it again) all parties need to work together, and think outside the left/right box, frankly and sensitively to find solutions. Never ever have i said that the current policy is right.

Three bedroom council houses may well be small by comparison to some privately owned homes - although no smaller than the 3 bedroom semi we used to live in. But certainly too large for a single person (not OAP but perfectly able 50ish year olds with empty nests) and certainly MUCH bigger and more suitable for families than a bedsit or b&b.

Comparatively large, Bags Three bedrooms instead of two! Two instead of one! Everything is relative.

Elegran you ought to be on a Government Think Tank.

I think most households of 50 year-olds comprise two people. It is ten or twenty years later that people are becoming more single again.

There are large council houses and flats. Not all social housing was built for the purpose! And large families have to be catered for.

They should use a carrot instead of a stick. There are more ways to skin a cat that telling it that it is its duty to lie down in front of the mower.

elegran .

Jura does not seem cross to me , she is just saying like it is !!!!!!!

granjura has put all her points across well and, to me, convincingly. Of course there are always exceptions, and of course the number of benefit 'cheats' is not as large as some of the media would have us believe. I really don't see why corporate tax -dodging is always brought into discussions like this - if it were completely wiped out, would the benefits system not require any restructuring at all? Was it perfectly all right as it was before the recent cuts?

I must have missed the post where somebody dismissed all public school pupils as toffs and buffoons. Or the one where we encouraged people to claim benefits fraudulently.
I said the present cabinet is not representative of the population it is supposed to serve. Perhaps all Cameron's old school friends are the best people to run the country but it does not seem likely that there are no talented people who did not go to Eton.

We have been talking about housing. Most council housing does not come under 'benefits', since most council house occupants pay rent as well as tax.

That the benefits system needs an overhaul is a separate issue.

But how would you get people to move when there are not enough smaller houses for them to move into? Throw them out into the street? Raise their rent so high that they can't afford it and they are forced to move - where to? Make it obligatory for all empty bedrooms to be filled with strangers, under penalty of eviction? Keep a register of people needing digs and another of people with spare rooms and billet one list onto another list? Have swap-shops where one family's children who want to move out change places with another lot of youngsters (plus baby) who don't know the ways of the family they are moving in with?

Would you pass a law that all council tenants must move every ten years to make room for more suitable occupants? That all tenancies should be reviewed annually and houses inspected to make sure that there were no rooms which were under-occupied? Who would do all the bureaucracy? Who would pay them? Who is going to vet both sides of a houseshare so that neither side takes advantage of the other?

It is all very well saying "They oughter" but the practical details of having it all happen smoothly present enormous difficulties, and would cost as much as building more smaller homes and making it attractive for those without families to fill a bigger home to move to them. Then the councils can reallocate the houses to whoever they want.

It is also the thin end of the wedge for council landlords to control the lives of their sitting tenants by decree alone. 1984, anyone?

granjura and others have been talking about a lot more than housing on this thread.

Housing and filling spare rooms was where the thread was last.

Ana I brought up the tax issue because there was talk on granjura's post about needing to raise funds for housing. I think we need to look at all sources of due income whether it be reducing fraudulent/ dishonest use of welfare or tax evasion. Money is money.

I tried to point out that the better debate is around how we solve problems not re-stating the problem over and over again.

If I was playing devil's advocate or on something like Moral Maze I might propose the following questions:

That anyone living in a house with more space than they actually need is morally bound to offer 'rooms to let' to those in need... starting with family for example and then moving on to local community...

Would it be better to use the National Trust /English Heritage houses/ empty offices etc etc as homes?

Should I have paid higher stamp duty when buying my 4 bed house when only DH & I live here?

Should 100% mortgages be easily available on properties under a certain price?

Should building firms get 0% loans to build starter homes/couple flats?

There are so many interesting possibilities to think about but we spend too much time being picky about personal things....

Some good ideas there Elegran

Council tenants do pay rents which are heavily subsidised, so a form of benefit.